Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the Word of the Lord; and he buried him in a valley of the land of Moab over against Beth Peor, but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day." (Deut. xxxiv. 5-6.) It was probably with a view to prevent the superstitious reverence which would have been likely to have been rendered to the spot, and to the remains of Moses, that the place of his burial was designedly left unknown. And similar may have been the object of divine wisdom in the uncertainty which has been permitted to remain as to the death and burial place of him who may not improperly be called the Moses of the New Dispensation. A carnal curiosity; a low and superstitious and irreverent intrusion into things unrevealed; a manifestation of that unspiritual desire "to know Christ after the flesh," when through the higher knowledge imparted by the Spirit it becomes his disciple "to know" even "him" in that respect "no more;" a return from the privileges of those who were permitted to see the divine beauty and meaning of earthly and outward ordinances by the Spirit, to resting on ordinances for the Spirit; this relapse of the church from the spirit of the Apostolic age, at once led it to corrupt the sublime and spiritual purity of St. Paul's doctrine, and to search, as if for the most precious of divine treasures, for his bones, and which, in the failure to find them, gradually converted conjecture into tradition, and superstitious wishes into history. If we will rightly view it, there is something august in the solemn shadows through which we vaguely discern the great Apostle, passing with majestic peace to martyrdom and heaven!

As he disappears, we seem to see him pause a

moment, and with solemn earnestness declare the truth which underlies all his teachings, and which the Church of Rome everywhere reverses, "The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life!"

NOTE.

THE theologian at present in greatest repute in Rome is Giovanni Perrone. Immediately after the above lecture was delivered, a small work of 160 pages was issued by him, under the title "S. Pietro in Roma, ossia la verita storica del viaggio di S. Pietro in Roma." It is evidently nothing more than an enlarged syllabus published in advance of an enormous work upon the subject, in the preparation of which he is now engaged. It is to be a companion to the massive production of Passaglia on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. It is intended as a final and full gathering up of all the testimony of all time in favor of this fundamental dogma. If such a question were to be settled by the number of authorities adduced without reference to their pertinency to the real point in question, this array would be indeed quite overwhelming.

It is an interesting fact, as illustrating the progress of opinion in Italy, that the work is prepared in confutation of another published at Turin, as recently as 1861, with the title "The Historical Impossibility of the Journey of St. Peter to Rome demonstrated by substituting True for False Tradition."

Before noticing the sort of proof which Perrone adduces for the fact of St. Peter's journey to Rome, let us remember the importance of the alleged doctrine which rests upon the alleged fact. To the Protestant it is by no means a matter of importance to prove that St. Peter was not at Rome. It might be admitted, and not a single step be thereby made toward the demonstration of the claim made on his behalf to the Vicarate of Christ and the Primacy of the Church. But to the Romanist it is essential that he should prove that St. Peter presided over the Church at

Rome. On that assumed fact is erected the most important doctrine-next to that of salvation by the death of Christ-ever proclaimed to man. If true, it is a truth on which the salvation of myriads rests. If false, it is a portentous falsehood, the evil results of which no imagination can conceive. It rests on the fact that St. Peter was at Rome. If he was not there, it falls to the ground, a convicted and dead lie. Now it will be admitted that such a fact should have proof that is unimpeachable, abundant, and undoubted. God did not allow the proofs of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection to be few and feeble. They are abundant and overwhelming. If he had intended St. Peter to be his vicar to the world, with the seat of his principate at Rome, he would not have left the doctrine or the fact of so momentous an arrangement in doubt. Of the doctrine there is not a shadow of proof in the Word of God. If it is conceivable that it should have been left so utterly without proof, it is conceivable only on the supposition that the fact should appear with indubitable brightness.

Now the mere fact that the question is raised whether St. Peter was ever actually at Rome, preliminary to the question whether he was there as head of the church, is presumptively damaging to the claims of his Episcopate and Headship. And the attempted proof of this alleged fact is so incidental, inferential, remote, and vague, that even if one is constrained, on the whole, to accept the fact of St. Peter's journey and residence at Rome, he would be equally compelled to conclude that no important doctrine, certainly no doctrine of such transcendent moment as that of the Primacy of St. Peter and his successors, could be allowed to rest upon a point proved with so much difficulty and by processes of argument so recondite, subtle, inferential, and

remote.

And now, turning to the work of Perrone, we find a chasm just where we need a bridge. Positive assertions of St. Peter's residence at Rome from and after Irenæus, about 180 A. D., we find in abundance; but the proof or the assertion of this fact, from intermediate authors, is altogether wanting. The attempt to wring out of expressions which are merely incidental in Clement of Rome, and Ignatius, such a testimony, is an utter failure. Clement, in the way of narrative and exhortation, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, uses the general expression that we have seen

with our own eyes good Apostles suffer martyrdom. He does not say which Apostles. Nor does the language imply, of necessity, an actual ocular view by the Romans and by them alone. He is writing to the Corinthians, and he says, we have seen among us. Writing, as he does, in a practical way to the Corinthians, and using the words we and among us, the words may well be believed to mean no more than if he had written thus: "I have spoken to you of the example of the ancient faithful men who have died from persecuting hatred. But let us turn to our own times. In our own day, we, ¿.e. the men of this generation, have seen faithful Apostles martyred."

He then proceeds to speak of Peter. He suffered and died from persecution. But Clement does not mention where he suffered. On this exceedingly small basis rests the alleged proof of the one only testimony which is ever claimed to be contemporaneous, of the martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome. The alleged testimony of Ignatius is equally unsatisfactory.

That the importance of this fact to the Romish system has not been overstated, will appear from the declaration of Perrone himself. The author of the work which he attempts to confute, asserts that some Catholic writers have declared that St. Peter was never at Rome. Perrone says that this is impossible. None but apostate Catholics could have made such an assertion. And why? Because they become apostate by making it. "The reason of this fact," viz., that no Catholic could have made this assertion, "is that the coming of St. Peter in Rome and the seat there established by him is connected as the indispensable condition with an article of our faith, that is, the primacy of order and jurisdiction belonging of divine right to the Roman Pontiff. Hence it follows that he cannot be a Catholic who does not admit the coming, the Episcopate, and the death of St. Peter in Rome."Page 32.

LECTURE XII.

THE CLAIM OF THE CHURCH OF ROME TO SANCTITY, INFALLIBILITY, AND UNITY CONSIDERED.

But he said, Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.-Luke, xi. 28.

ON Sunday evening last I heard, and some of you heard, disparaging reference made to the word of God, by the distinguished Romish divine who is now preaching a series of Lenten sermons in a neighboring church. Those Christians were-I was about to say-ridiculed, who believe in and rely upon a book for divine truth and life. At the same time that this reliance upon a book for authority in sacred things was censured, appeals were constantly made to a book as if it were a final and absolute authority upon all questions of faith and practice. The book against reliance upon which we were warned was the Word of God. The book which was quoted to settle our faith and secure our assent was one of St. Augustine. While cautioned not to rely upon the Word, we were invited to believe in the one holy, illuminated, infallible present Church of Rome. It was said to us in substance, "Deluded, miserable, without the covenant, without grace, without the promises, without the divine life, are those who rely upon the Bible. Hear and believe the teachings of the Papal Church."

Such were the words which fell on our ears on Sunday last. To-day, from the ascended Son of